Reply With Quote
I agree
Since the day of its inception, the WNBA has never been profitable. The only reason it's lasted this long is because Stern created it and would rather keep it on life support with revenue earned by the NBA and its players than put his ego aside and admit it was a failure. The WNBA has never demonstrated the ability to turn a profit regardless of economic conditions in America. People love to use the term "It's a business" when describing pro sports, but the WNBA is anything but a business. The sole purpose of a business is making money, one thing the WNBA doesn't do. It's better described as a non-profit charity organization funded by the NBA for female basketball players.
Now, when the economy is good, and everyone (owners, players, coaches, etc.) in the NBA is fat and happy, it's excusable for Stern to use the NBA to keep the WNBA around. It's still in stupid for a "business" to invest in something my dog can see isn't profitable, but it's not something worth complaining about.
In this economy tho, it's ridiculous that not only is the WNBA still around, there hasn't been any murmur of shutting it down/contracting it. There's been talk from Stern of killing as many as 10 NBA teams that are losing money right now but have made money in the past, but Stern hasn't even mentioned the idea of killing a league that can't make money in a good or bad economy. There's a likely chance we'll see a hard salary cap where NBA players take a big pay cut and have contracts that are only partially guaranteed when NBA players are selling tickets and earning big TV contracts for the NBA, yet I haven't heard anything about reducing the WNBA players' salary/making their contract non-guaranteed, when the only reason they get paid is revenue earned by NBA athletes.
Does this seem as stupid to anyone else as it does to me?
I agree
Pretty much describes it
Had to look it up to confirm, but the WNBA has already contracted in number of teams and roster spots for each team. Does anyone know what the most recent subsidy the NBA paid to cover WNBA losses? That would be a fair assessment of how things are going. Anyway, I think the league and team owners (including the Spurs) are probably content to go along at similar levels until the ESPN contract runs out in 2016.
IMO, the NBA isn't in any kind of shape right now to be paying subsidies to cover WNBA losses regardless of how big it is. That's not fair to the NBA teams that have to cover their own losses. It's not like the NBA would be helping the WNBA out until the economy turned around like it would be with certain NBA teams, it'd be helping the WNBA out just so it could help the WNBA out again with less money in a good economy.
As far as league owners being content, I think it also has a lot to do with owners knowing how stubborn Stern is keeping the NBA alive, and suggesting it be cut down would put said owner on Stern's list.
Do they have to cover all their own losses?
I agree there are other steps that can be taken.It's not like the NBA would be helping the WNBA out until the economy turned around like it would be with certain NBA teams, it'd be helping the WNBA out just so it could help the WNBA out again with less money in a good economy.
You do know that several WNBA teams are owned by NBA owners, don't you?As far as league owners being content, I think it also has a lot to do with owners knowing how stubborn Stern is keeping the NBA alive, and suggesting it be cut down would put said owner on Stern's list.
Not 100% sure, but I can't imagine owners would be complaining about losses they don't have to cover.
Good, but I wasn't trying to argue with you
Yes, I wasn't sure what you were actually saying in the last part. My point was that no one involved in CBA negotiations is stupid enough to suggest scrapping the WNBA, knowing that Stern refuses to accept the WNBA as a failure, and knowing how Stern reacts to those who question him/his creations.
I don't understand why people think owners live in fear of Stern. He's their employee and works at their collective pleasure.
And no, teams don't cover all their own losses. , until the league took over the Hornets, they received a direct multimillion dollar subsidy from the state of Louisiana every year. They might still be getting that.
He can issue them whatever fines he wants to and there are plenty of people (me not being one of them) who think Stern has refs throw games against owners he doesn't like. If there's an owner who does believe that, he's gonna naturally fear Stern in some ways.
With the blessing of the owners as a whole.If you don't believe it, why bring it up?and there are plenty of people (me not being one of them) who think Stern has refs throw games against owners he doesn't like.If there is an owner who believes that, he's kind of an idiot for owning an NBA team.If there's an owner who does believe that, he's gonna naturally fear Stern in some ways.
The funding they got from parties outside of the NBA is irrelevant. If the WNBA was getting government subsidies to cover its losses, I wouldn't have made this thread. Do you know of a situation where the NBA itself is covering the losses of a team?
I'm pretty sure if owners in the NBA didn't have to cover losses, there'd be plenty of teams spending like Cuban and Buss do.
Because my personal belief is irrelevant. It's about certain owners who fear Stern, and it's naive to think theories that got a well respected coach (George Karl) to admit his fear of Stern/NBA officials on national TV haven't hit home with a few NBA owners. I personally believe you shouldn't be watching the NBA if you think it's rigged, but it's impossible to deny that there are an alarmingly high amount of people who think the NBA is rigged compared to other sports like the NFL or MLB.If you don't believe it, why bring it up?
Won't deny that, owners are also dumb for giving out contracts they can't afford.
This thread needs some mutha ing Koolaid in it..
what's up Ephailtes *aka* Leetonidas
There are a few revenue sharing agreements already in place.
Then why don't WNBA teams spend in the same way?I'm pretty sure if owners in the NBA didn't have to cover losses, there'd be plenty of teams spending like Cuban and Buss do.
Not all their losses are covered either.
Back on topic, I guess it's not about fear as much as it is owners not bothering to mention something Stern won't even entertain. It seems obvious that Stern would have to get incredibly desperate before deciding to give up on the WNBA.
If a great majority of the NBA owners wanted to scrap the WNBA, how could Stern stop it?
You guys ascribe way too much power to this guy.
Revenue sharing and subsidies to cover for losses are two completely different things. If after revenue sharing and everything else a team is still in the reds, I don't think the NBA covers losses. Cuban for example, operates at a loss every year because he can afford it. I don't think the NBA covers any of his losses.
This thread wasn't about WNBA teams. I was talking the WNBA league itself. It can't operate on its own. If it could and the issue was a few WNBA teams losing money, I wouldn't suggest killing the WNBA entirely. And obviously the WNBA spends more than it can afford given it needs NBA aide to stay alive.
So you're saying NBA owners, including the ones who don't own a WNBA team, have the power to scrap the WNBA at any time? News to me.
There could be plenty of reasons. I'm sure they lose money on NBA Cares too. Why is no one talking about scrapping that?
They would certainly have the power to end the subsidies. Why would they not?
There isn't a commentator or reporter who really wants address why the WNBA still exists. It's almost a taboo subject. If any ESPN sportscaster came out and said the WNBA was a drain on the NBA, he'd most likely be fired.
Very few people actually care about women's sports in general. And the WNBA is kept alive, not because people actually want to watch it, but because we're all sitting around pretending that women can do anything men can do.
I dont even want to imagine the PR hit Stern would take if the WNBA were dissolved. Every sports personality sitting in front of a camera on ESPN/TNT/Fox would pretend it was some kind of travesty.
Because they don't have complete control over the NBA's cash flow and operations. If they did, there wouldn't be things like 6 figure fines for bad mouthing officials. I'm pretty sure the league gets a certain percentage of total revenue every years owners have no control over.
It would be kind of dumb for an ESPN sportscaster to talk about his own network's programming.
Jim Rome has actually gone on several rants basically saying, "I've accepted the fact the WNBA is something Stern is gonna do whatever it takes to keep around and will keep on life support as long as he can, I just don't wanna hear about it as much as I have to."
Really?
Who does?
Their employee, David Stern?
That's a power they gave their employee, David Stern.If they did, there wouldn't be things like 6 figure fines for bad mouthing officials.And who set the league up to do that?I'm pretty sure the league gets a certain percentage of total revenue every years owners have no control over.
You're acting like the NBA is an en y unto itself and Stern is allowing the owners to participate in it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
